The
Politics of AdviceBiased scientific information
in government agenciesMike Kuhar, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Neuropharmacology

Crossing
Boundaries How intellectual initiatives
form and flourishPaul Jean, Associate Director of New Research Initiatives, Emory
College Office of Research, and Daniel Teodorescu, Director of Institutional
Research, Office of the Provost

Last
February’s Academic Exchange article “The
Test of Time” addressed the ways interdisciplinary work
is transforming the intellectual landscape at Emory and elsewhere,
as new programs
emerge and some even become full-fledged departments. But
what does it take to launch a successful cross-disciplinary initiative
at Emory? How do these programs and their leaders create structures
that are both nimble enough and strong enough to withstand the changing
demands for knowledge?

To better understand exactly such issues, the Office of the Provost
began a study in 2001 of a variety of centers and programs at Emory
that cross school boundaries. We examined program leaders’
views of the origin, mission, structure, barriers, and benefits
of these programs. Our sample of initiatives ranged from fairly
large centers with external grant funding to a small faculty reading
and discussion group. All crossed at least one school boundary and
centered around scholarly inquiry, although some also had a teaching
component. Through a qualitative analysis of interviews with leaders
of these eleven cross-school initiatives, we tried to understand
what makes them tick. What factors help shape the genesis and evolution
of cross-school intellectual initiatives? What benefits do they
offer for both faculty and the university? What challenges do they
encounter?

Our findings echo the observations of program leaders featured in
the Exchange article about the tensions between departmental requirements
and the value of flexible structures that permit disciplines to
evolve and connect. Some initiative leaders interviewed for our
study described their roles as “one-person shows” with
cross-disciplinary work being done “on top of” departmental
responsibilities. They acknowledged the difficulties of wearing
“multiple hats” and being “spread too thin”
across competing obligations. Yet these leaders agreed that such
initiatives create new knowledge, garner prestige for the university,
and serve as an “intellectual refuge” for scholars.

We found that certain traits of the founding scholars are key in
helping launch or sustain an initiative in the face of the challenges
posed by traditional university structures. Most of the eleven programs
started because one or two scholars were committed to an idea and
worked on it together, day after day. Although the programs were
different, the leaders displayed similar personality traits, such
as dedication, patience, consistency, imagination, tact, and organization—all
traits that helped them overcome the challenges of creating and
managing these programs. According to one director, good leadership
requires the diplomatic skills and open-mindedness to “sell
the program” not only to potential scholarly participants
but also to the “administration and the larger community.”

Another critical quality of leaders is their powerful networks of
collegial or collaborative relationships across the university.
Often founders drew on relationships established outside their home
discipline in other interdisciplinary forums at or beyond the university,
or through work on university-wide committees. In one example, team-teaching
encouraged faculty to reach out to colleagues beyond their discipline
and strengthen relationships across departments and schools. Three
faculty members in religion, biology, and physics, for instance,
grew a team-teaching experience into a discussion series in science
and religion that flourished well beyond its teaching roots. Collegial
networks also helped bring intellectual and financial resources
to some programs.

In addition to strong leadership and collegial networks, three other
traits often characterize thriving cross-school initiatives. First,
it appears that cross-school initiatives are more likely to garner
initial interest and support when they have predominantly outward-looking
and problem-based research missions. For example, a law and religion
program developed a focus on scholarship pertaining to human rights;
a health and society program gathered scholars, community leaders,
and public health officials to address community-based approaches
to preventing disease; and a science and religion program grappled
with the effects of physician-assisted suicide, genetic screening,
and the ethics of alternative medicine.
Early support, or “seed money,” from central administrators
is a second key predictor of success. To launch the behavioral neuroscience
program, for example, early financial commitment from Emory and
a state governmental agency helped to win a $20 million grant from
the National Science Foundation. Small-scale help can be powerful
as well. Although the law and religion program later received funding
from a number of schools and administrative units as well as external
grants, a few thousand dollars from the provost’s office helped
establish the program in 1982. In addition, many leaders described
the early support and enthusiasm of deans, the provost, department
chairs, or leaders of other interdisciplinary programs as critical
in getting programs off the ground.

Finally, we found that flexible governance structures permitted
leadership practices and missions to change as interests and funding
opportunities shifted. None of the leaders envisioned a natural
endpoint for their initiatives. Instead they described a cycle in
which one project faded as another took its place. In other words,
the initiatives adapted to the changing interests of faculty as
fields, resources, and technologies evolved.

These findings present several implications for launching a cross-disciplinary
initiative. Although universities tout the benefits of cross-disciplinary
programs, the reality is that it is increasingly difficult to communicate
across the growing maze of structures that characterize research
universities. Administrators must be tenacious to overcome the poor
communication channels among departments and initiatives. Universities
could better recognize the value of cross-disciplinary efforts by
adjusting reward structures, establishing flexible structures, and
providing timely resources.

One can reasonably expect that scholars at both Emory and other
research universities will expand the number of cross-school initiatives.
Such programs not only address some of society’s most pressing
problems but also help universities define their distinctiveness.
Two publications offer additional information about this study.
A brochure, “Intellectual Initiatives: Working Across Disciplines,
Schools, and Institutions” is available from the Office of
Institutional Research (www.emory.edu/provost/ipr/ipr_faculty/initiatives_brochure.htm).
And the summer issue of The Review of Higher Education
features an article that explores these findings in the context
of the history and theory of the development of higher education.
Despite the challenge cross-disciplinary initiatives face, the growing
literature on them suggests that their potential to advance scholarly
inquiry will continue to help them form and flourish.